‘You are reserved for a great Monday!’ Fine, but Sunday will never end.—Kafka

February 17, 2008

On Being Partisan

But I am running for President because I believe that to actually make change happen - to make this time different than all the rest - we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together to get things done. That's how we'll win this election, and that's how we'll change this country when I am President of the United States...

Many will recognize this as part of the standard stump speech of Senator Barack Obama. He has often been referred to as the "Cum Bi Ya" candidate or the "Can't we all just get along" politician. Our own Jodi Dean has ridiculed him as advocating "Let us rejoice and be glad that we are one." I must admit that I myself have struggled with the issue of democrats appealing to bi-partisanship and a message of unity. With the issues we face as a country so large, and stakes so high, can we afford to white wash the real economic and political divisions in the United States?

It is with these questions in mind that I recently finished the very powerful book by Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal.In addition to making a strong case for the re-assertion of government intervention into the economy, Krugman lays out the political causes of the growing economic inequality in the United States. And he clearly lays the blame at the feet of the corporatist right's desire to return to the gilded age. In an op-ed that hammers on the same themes, and specifically addresses the conciliatory tone of Senator Obama, Krugman calls for more, not less, partisanship:

American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were different. For example, Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that “politics has become so bitter and partisan” — which it certainly has.

But he then went on to say that partisanship is why “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that’s what we have to change first.” Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we’ll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship — but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning.

Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another Dwight Eisenhower.

You see, the nastiness of modern American politics isn’t the result of a random outbreak of bad manners. It’s a symptom of deeper factors — mainly the growing polarization of our economy. And history says that we’ll see a return to bipartisanship only if and when that economic polarization is reversed...

I urge Mr. Obama — and everyone else who thinks that good will alone is enough to change the tone of our politics — to read the speeches of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the quintessential example of a president who tackled big problems that demanded solutions.

For the fact is that F.D.R. faced fierce opposition as he created the institutions — Social Security, unemployment insurance, more progressive taxation and beyond — that helped alleviate inequality. And he didn’t shy away from confrontation.

“We had to struggle,” he declared in 1936, “with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

It was only after F.D.R. had created a more equal society, and the old class warriors of the G.O.P. were replaced by “modern Republicans” who accepted the New Deal, that bipartisanship began to prevail.

The history of the last few decades has basically been the story of the New Deal in reverse. Income inequality has returned to levels not seen since the pre-New Deal era, and so have political divisions in Congress as the Republicans have moved right, once again becoming the party of the economic elite. The signature domestic policy initiatives of the Bush administration have been attempts to undo F.D.R.’s legacy, from slashing taxes on the rich to privatizing Social Security. And a bitter partisan gap has opened up between the G.O.P. and Democrats, who have tried to defend that legacy...

So am I calling for partisanship for its own sake? Certainly not. By all means pass legislation, if you can, with plenty of votes from the other party: the Social Security Act of 1935 received 77 Republican votes in the House, about the same as the number of Republicans who recently voted for a minimum wage increase.

But politicians who try to push forward the elements of a new New Deal, especially universal health care, are sure to face the hatred of a large bloc on the right — and they should welcome that hatred, not fear it.

I think Krugman's call to arms is inspiring and his assessment of recent history accurate. But I am also struck by what he says toward the end of his book: "The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition." I suspect this is also true - but where I disagree is in tactics. I do not think an overly caustic, partisan tone will get democrats either the white house or large majorities in the legislature. I believe a rhetoric of healing and national reconciliation ("Cum Bi Ya-ism" if you will) is more likely to appeal to a broad base of voters, forming a large enough coalition to combat the inevitable onslaught of the right wing attack machine. Sounding a call for unity is not declaring surrender in advance, but simply getting as many folks on your side first, before doing battle.

15 Comments

Sounding a call for unity is not declaring surrender in advance, but simply getting as many folks on your side first, before doing battle.

Hear hear. Despite having posted that article from Econospeak (as well as the JFK video), I'm really less and less convinced by people who merely scoff at Obama (especially when the only alternative is a member of one of the two ruling concierge families, again!) They are both natural politicians, but only one seems, to me, a natural and genuinely open leader (open to ideas, that is, beyond those of the insipid consultant class). His positions currently leave some things to be desired, but such is the political landscape and reality today–he simply wouldn't get a foot in otherwise (also thanks in part to Clinton). Hillary, on the other hand, would make a fine Supreme Court Justice. So yeah, I confess to liking Obama more and more. There's a long video of him speaking for 40 minutes on my blog now, and he actually does inspire me–the timbre and tone of his comments I first thought deliberately weighted to sound mature but eventually he won me over. Not as some savior, obviously, but as someone who could be effective in today's shitparade and also remain open to well-argued pressure from the genuine left.

Thank you for the link. I think that article points out the difficulty Obama would have if he emphasized class conflict - he cannot afford to come across as an angry black man and expect to win.

But I also understand the criticism of leftists who believe he (and Clinton even more so) does not represent significant change in content from the current course. You participated in that brief discussion I had at icite about a month ago where Jodi was parodying Obama's Rhetoric("Let's just make sure that no one gets mad, that we all stick together, that we have public-private partnerships that truly represent the good that corporations provide to all of us. Let's not be angry...") I can certainly concede that Obama does not represent radical change in the sense of a profound move toward socialism, or even more traditional Keynsian policies. But he certainly presents a stark choice when confronted by McCain or any other right wing tool.

And while cynicism is understandable, I think it is admirable that Obama inspires signicant numbers of young people to get involved in the political process. For whatever reason, he makes people feel good about themselves, and that is essential in building a political coalition beyond the standard democratic base. Whether Obama is ultimately a "transformative figure" is highly debatable - but he seems to have the potential to reintroduce some faith in government, and its ability to help people.

He seems to have the potential to reintroduce some faith in government, and its ability to help people.

But is increased faith in the government, when combined with a government that continues to screw people over, a good thing?

Obama strikes me as an odd kind of, I don't know, affective (or maybe ethical) technocratism. Like Clinton, his message is supposedly non-ideological, not about taking specific positions but about putting "the right people" in office. But whereas for Clinton, and the older school of neoliberals, "right people" is defined in terms of expertise, for Obama (and here he's maybe picking up something from Blair), the right people to be in office are good and/or sincere people.

What unites the two here is that their electoral pitches both boil down to "elect me and you can stop worrying about politics." Obama's variant of this doesn't strike me as any less disempowering than Clinton's.

I've always been confused by two beliefs of USian progressives:
1) That if they argue rationally & behave nicely, sooner or later everyone will agree with them, when the right has long been aware that the point is to defeat your enemies and impose your ideas by whatever means are available to you. Of course, as per the post, coming out with 'partisan' rhetoric may well be poor electoral strategy, but why is this only ever a problem for the left & centre? Obama as post-ideological Blairite seems right; mutatis mutandis, the mood is not a million miles from Britain in '97.
2) That the right's drawing of the distinction as govt intervention vs. no govt intervention is basically correct. How does a military budget not far off $1 trillion not constitute "government intervention in the economy"? That the neoliberal-neoconservative alliance has lasted so well surely has something to do with the unwillingness of progressives to probe this point.

tl, you ask a good question. And my response may be overly simplistic but it seems that the Right can impose its will largely because it has very wealthy and powerful constituencies behind them. If the ruling elite largely support your program, than it is rather easy to pass - especially when you have a complicit media helping to distract people from the actual impact of those policies.

Voyou, I largely agree with your assessment of Clinton, though I think his presidency was a mixed bag. You probably suspect I am naive but I do not think Obama's rhetoric relies exclusively on experts, or "the right people." Whether he actually would govern differently than Clinton remains to be seen.

Obama strikes me as an odd kind of, I don't know, affective (or maybe ethical) technocratism...What unites the two here is that their electoral pitches both boil down to "elect me and you can stop worrying about politics."

I for one am sorry Obama strikes you as a technocratism (sic). In fact I'd say the opposite is true; he seems to be making a lot of people feel empowered and included in the political system. Whether or not he'll capitalize on these sentiments or not as President remains to be seen.

But then I think it's fairly simple: he's a lot less likely to get slaughtered in the general election than Hillary is, and we should all vote for him.

But: the only real answer to all these comments is: "I don't know." We don't know what kind of President they'll be because they're not President they're campaigning. All we know now is what kind of campaigner they are. We have an electoral system and political/media cartel climate in which they're not allowed to be completely open and courageous; instead they're allowed to do everything they can to get elected. Similarly, I kind of agree with these comments on TPM Cafe that debating the military budget in the primaries or even general election would be pointless; Chalmers Johnson argues that it will take something more than procedural politics to change that disastrous paradigm, and attempting to take it on now would almost certainly be suicide (perhaps even literally).

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well.

matt - sorry for not expressing myself more clearly, & i can't see how the passage you cite is a response to my question. What i was talking about was, in the first instance, the quote in the original post; perhaps i'm wrong to give this broader significance.

i didn't mean to suggest that anyone thinks that govt intervention is always and everywhere a good in itself; this would be an incomprehensible position (& seems like a straw man in your Obama quote, tbh). My contention was that progressives have largely accepted that the debate is between intervention and laissez-faire, rather than between intervention for social justice and intervention for (domestic & foreign) repression.

Alain - of course. what i'm driving at is that the Obama moment seems to be premised on an occlusion of this basic truth, that the pursuit positive social change will inevitably involve some fighting against entrenched and powerful interests (e.g. for healthcare reform, the interests of the insurance & drug industries). I agree with matt & other posters that facile cynicism will get us nowhere. And, yes, not alienating powerful lobbies is probably sensible at this stage in the game. But this disavowal of conflict seems to be more deeply rooted than a mere tactical imperative.

thnks tl, i read you loud and clear. i just thought the blog diary (all of it) was remarkable.

agian, i suppose the reasons "progressives" don't attack the established (false) frame of this paradigm are complex (without a military policy based on intervention––not to mention a military-as-currency––for instance the US would almost certainly cease to exist as we know it...there are important debates about what potential form that intervention should take and what its goals should be...presumably these could include some long-term image/aspiration to a future where military power itself fades as an issue?) But while both candidates do question the mantra of "small government," to preach about "intervention" in the sense we both prefer, while equally threatening the only stick currently propping up the world's remaining superpower (a military built on loans from China) is surely political suicide right now, (unless maybe you're Bernie Sanders?). So i agree it's not immediately gratifying, but i think i understand why he isn't trying to change the rules of the game before getting chosen to play, hey, real change being after all slow at first and taking place on many levels. in short i don't think it's enough to assault the entrenched interests–they must be attacked but they also must be outsmarted, and attacked with not only a united constituent but institutional power. call this the failed dream of Clintonism/third-way neoliberalism if you must; i'd prefer to give the initial promise of that dream (if it ever really was, or before it became hopelessly corrupted) another face and another, different chance. so yeah, i would love to see Obama first in power, and then pressured relentlessly to get beyond the shameless hypocritical labeling that has replaced political discourse to real, ongoing debate and tough action. the latter may indeed require some pressure.

Or, as Samizdat put it recently: "I still admire Paul Krugman despite his singularly unquestioning commitment to Hillary Clinton's cause lately." But then puff pieces on Hillary are pretty much a requisite for nyTimes editorials, aren't they...

S.1151: A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil.

This bill represents reformer-politics ala BO. It is not entirely misguided, but it’s done from a sort of “placate the executives” perspective–if not a “Win-Win” situation.

That’s the politics via compromise that Dems have specialized in for years, and which a few intelligent greens with some spine (they are rare) have objected to. Nader, whatever you think of him, also supported research for energy-efficient vehicles–-many politicians have, of all flavors. But Nader (he’s hardly perfect) did not suggest that energy-efficiency hinge on “incentives”–i.e. on making sure automotive corporations keep turning a profit, even when they powerdown from Yukons to e-Geos, or whatever.

An assessment of the voting records of Obama vs Hillary demonstrates that BO even outranks Hillary on the “appease the executives scale”.

BO’s a great political salesman, with “excellent communication skills,” as HR clowns might yawp. Indeed he seems a bit like a hustler from Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross pitching riverfront property, and closing the deal with a firm handshake.

Long Sunday also predictably (but with such good taste, which rarely ever stoops to vull-garity) overlooked Obama's "evangelicalism". Here’s a quote from BO from a few months ago, when he started insisting Dems must court fundies:

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.”

Perhaps Mr. Obama missed a few lectures at Haw-vawwd, like those touching on economic materialism, not to say James Madison.

Hillary has problems, but she has not appealed to the Xtians in that manner (neither has McCain, really). If it’s just marketing, then BO’s even more of a bunko-salesman than he would be if he sincerely believed. He has proclaimed his faith loudly and often (and campaigned on a “40 days of Faith and Phamily” platform).

Just to say, tl, I'm not positive that I agree with Chalmers Johnson. IT didn't use to be so hard to raise the issue, that's for sure (Gore Vidal did it, for instance, against William Buckley re: Nixon).

It seems to me, that none of the comments in this sections really takes into account or explicates their position of enunciation or their specific perspective on the matter at hand. Doing this I guess we could all agree that:

- From a partisan perspective BO’s tactics are effective and successful. Quite likely they are winning him at least the nomination. If we are looking for results in the short run BO’s take on things is what we want.
- From an ideological perspective (not to confuse with Marx’s concept of ideology) it is quite clear, that what might be a pragmatically clever rhetoric (the call for unity) all the while is harmful. This harmfulness resides in BO’s implicit endorsement of the highly ideological idea (ideology this time taken in its proper marxist sense), that political unity is more desirable than open class conflict. BO effectively buttresses the current social-economic order, while keeping a superficial semblance of progressiveness.

What we end up in is the paradox of simultaneously approving BO’s campaigning tactics and rejecting his rhetoric: “He’s right in doing what he’s doing and all the while he’s most profoundly mistaken!”

What I think we ought to do is to maintain this inherent tension in our analysis, this being both politically pragmatic and properly ideological. The tension is inscribed in the political field itself and as such it is reducible to the difference of getting things done within the current politico-symbolic order on one hand, and our desire for transcending this order on the other.

An acceptance of this tension is what enables us to avoid both cynicism and starry-eyed utopianism. Hereby we are able to extract the true wisdom of the famous slogan of the Parisian revolt of May ’68: “Soyons realists, demondons l’impossible!” (Be realistic, demand the impossible!). Being realists within the given social-, economic-, and symbolic order is what makes possible the realistic demand of what seems impossible, totally unrealistic, within the same given order of things.

This is the exact kind of politics that makes possible a proper authentic democratic choice. Needless to say, this choice is absent in the current primaries.*

This is why every endorsement and backing of Barack Obama’s candidature must be followed by a stern criticism and dissociation, though we shouldn’t necessarily expressed both in the mass media.

*(A pessimist would even claim that this lack of choice is an inherent characteristic of both the current party-led constitutive and parliamentary democracies, and of cause of all totalitarian and despotic regimes)

BRH, Thank you for your comment. Just to clarify, are you saying that leftists should embrace an Obama type figure to the degree he can "get things done" but be critical to the degree that he does not challenge the current dominant order? If this is your view I am largely in agreement with you. Becasue even if none of the candidates (including Obama) are a "proper democratic choice" (at least in the sense of a choice that would make real change) that does not negate the fact that there are some choices that are significantly better than others. At least that is how I am understanding you.